Housing (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
We move to stage 3 proceedings on the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
I will make the usual announcement about the procedures to be followed. We will deal with the amendments to the bill then we will move on to the debate on the motion to pass the bill. For the first part, members should have with them the bill as amended at stage 2—SP bill 40A; the marshalled list, which contains the amendments lodged by the deadline that I have selected for debate; and the groupings, which I have agreed.
The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division on an amendment. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a period of one minute for the first division after a debate. All other divisions will last 30 seconds.
Section 10—Local housing strategies
Group 1 is on local housing strategies. Amendment 70, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.
Amendment 70 responds to an amendment at stage 2 from Cathie Craigie, which intended to ensure that the use of assistance to improve housing conditions in the private sector is given formal policy recognition alongside the other issues in the local housing strategy. It is perhaps fitting at the start of today's proceedings to reflect that many of the Executive amendments at stage 3 are a response to pressure from the committee on issues of concern to it. I am glad that the amendment responds to its concerns.
Amendment 70 concerns the powers that are at the heart of the scheme of assistance provisions in part 2 of the bill, rather than the more limited duties in that part. Its effect will be to ensure that local authorities' local housing strategies include their strategic vision for how they will use those powers to bring about improvements in housing conditions in the private sector. We could issue guidance to local authorities, saying that they should cover that issue, but I agree with Cathie Craigie that the policy significance of the scheme of assistance approach is such that it needs to have formal recognition alongside other statutory requirements for the local housing strategy.
The provision will complement the requirement in section 69 for the local authority to publish criteria for how it gives assistance—those criteria will be focused on delivery within the strategy.
I move amendment 70.
Amendment 70 agreed to.
Section 12—Tenancies to which repairing standard duty applies
Group 2 is on tenancies that are wholly or partly exempt from provisions of the bill. Amendment 72, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 73 to 76 and 87. I point out that if amendment 72 is agreed to, amendments 73 to 76 will be pre-empted.
Section 12 is intended to exclude agricultural holdings from the repairing standard. An agricultural holding is primarily let for an agricultural purpose. If there is a house on the holding, that is a secondary issue and, accordingly, it should be excluded. In practice, the maintenance of the house is normally the tenant's responsibility under an agricultural holding agreement. For both those reasons, it is inappropriate for the landlord of such a holding to have the same responsibilities as a landlord letting a house in the normal way. That was recognised in previous legislation and we are carrying that recognition through into the modernised legislation.
The committee was concerned that the definition might not cover all the situations in which those considerations apply. Therefore, we have reconsidered the issue and in amendment 72 have expanded the definition to include the new types of tenancy introduced by the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 and also crofts and smallholdings.
Mary Scanlon's amendments 73 to 76 seek to achieve the same effect, but do so less comprehensively, refer not to the house but to the holding and do not allow for the situation of a farmer who lets a house to a third party. When that happens, it is right that the farmer should meet the requirements of the repairing standard, but Mary Scanlon's amendments would relieve him or her of that obligation.
On a more detailed point, amendment 73 deals with cottars. Cottars' houses that are on crofts or agricultural holdings will be caught and exempted by amendment 72. We do not feel that other cottars' houses would fall within the general principle on which amendment 72 is based—that the prime purpose of the tenancy is to run an agricultural unit—but if further clarification on that point is desirable we will consider using the general ancillary power to make supplemental provision. I therefore ask Mary Scanlon not to move amendments 73 to 76.
Amendment 87 deals with a different aspect of the protections afforded by the provisions in the bill. The existing definition of a tenancy includes any occupation of living accommodation under a person's terms of employment. The amendment would alter the definition of a tenancy so that it includes only tied tenancies where the house is leased and it is ancillary to the person's terms of employment. People whose occupation of a tied house did not fall within that narrower definition would be denied the protections of the repairing standard or the tenant's right to make adaptations to suit a disabled occupant. It is hard to see why such a person should not have those protections or why a reasonable employer who provides a house should not want them to apply to the employee. After all, the house is provided in exchange for the occupant's rent or, in the case of tied tenancies, the occupant's labour.
Perhaps even more important, amendment 87 could open up a loophole for an unreasonable employer to avoid the obligations by providing the house under an occupancy arrangement rather than a lease.
I move amendment 72.
I have found this part of the bill quite complex and, at stage 3, the issues are becoming even more complex.
Amendments 73 to 76 address issues with the original drafting of section 12 in relation to the application of the repairing standard to agricultural tenancies. The bill as introduced stated that only agricultural holdings under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 were excluded, but there is a subsequent act, the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003. Holdings under the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 and the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts 1886 to 1931 also need to be excluded for the same reasons. Those are all types of agricultural holdings where the house is ancillary to the purpose of the let, which is the land or the farm.
My understanding is that Executive amendment 72 will exclude tenancies of a house on a croft or a small landholding. However, the nature of croft and small landholding tenancies is that the tenancy is of the land. In fact, the tenant has usually built the house himself to work the land, so it is incorrect to refer to the tenancy of the house. The minister's amendment will mean that if a crofter wanted to let a second house on his croft under a normal residential tenancy, he would not have to comply with the repairing standard. I do not think that that was the intention—the Executive's amendment was supposed to exclude the actual croft tenancy under which the house is ancillary to the land.
Amendment 87 is about tied houses. I raised the issue at stage 1 and stage 2; at stage 2, I lodged amendments to remove tied houses from the legislation. As I lived in a tied house for the first two decades of my life, because my father was a farm worker, I want the repairing standard for tied houses—whether Bute House or a farm cottage—to be as high as it is elsewhere in the housing sector.
The main point in relation to amendment 87 is that a tied house is part of an employment contract rather than a landlord-tenant contract. I understand that the definition of a tenancy includes a person who pays rent. No rent is paid in service occupancies where the occupancy of the house is a contractual requirement of the employment. I give the example of Bute House; it is a tied house and the service occupancy is covered in the First Minister's contract of employment.
Some employers provide a house to an employee on the basis of a lease, usually called a service tenancy. In that case, the repairing standard will apply as usual, as rent is charged, although it may not be the full market rent. In the case of service occupancies, whether of the First Minister, farm workers or ministers of the kirk, the provision of the house is secondary to the primary purpose of the contract, which is employment. I ask the Scottish Executive whether it can legitimately legislate in such circumstances, as employment is reserved to Westminster. The terms of a service occupancy are a matter for the employment contract; therefore, it is not appropriate to deal with them under the repairing standard housing panel mechanism. For example, rent sanctions imposed by the private rented housing panel cannot be effective in cases where no rent is paid. If a farm worker refused to live in a house provided by his employer due to its poor standard, there could be a case for constructive dismissal, which would be handled by an industrial tribunal, not a private rented housing panel.
Yesterday, the Communities Committee discussed the statutory instruments to implement the national registration scheme for private landlords. It is interesting that tied houses are exempt from that scheme for the reasons that I gave. Why can tied houses be exempt from the national registration scheme for private landlords but be included in the Housing (Scotland) Bill?
My amendments address whether it is competent for the bill to cover issues in an employment contract.
I thank the minister for lodging amendment 72, which covers the points that the committee was concerned about. It clarifies and extends the exemptions in an appropriate manner.
As for amendment 87, in the name of Mary Scanlon, I had concerns in the committee about whether there was interference in a contractual relationship and whether there was competence to do that. Having had the benefit of further discussion with the minister, I am satisfied that there will be no such interference, that the bill is competent and that it is important that protection is extended to tied cottages. Therefore, I do not support Mary Scanlon's amendment. However, we will need to consider this area as the legislation is implemented. I look forward to more discussion about the regulations that will implement the bill.
There are two ways of looking at section 12. First, I will deal with the legalities and technicalities of the repairing standard duty. More fundamentally, I will consider what is right from the tenant's point of view.
First, I reassure Euan Robson and Mary Scanlon that there is absolutely no question of our straying into reserved areas. However one constructs the matter, there is an arrangement with an employer about a job, and there is an arrangement with an employee about a house. They are two separate matters—even if they are in one contract.
On a specific point—and this is important, because Mary Scanlon deployed it as a central argument—tied houses are not excluded from the regulations on the registration of private landlords. Manses, as a group, are specifically excluded, not tied houses.
The crucial and fundamental point is that a tied house is the home of its occupant; therefore, it should meet the repairing standard. By the same token, the letting of a house, whether under a lease or in an employment contract, should be managed in a fit and proper way. If an employer provides a house, he or she should have a responsibility to the occupant, as does a landlord under a lease. It is important to confirm the status of an employee in a tied house as a tenant for the purposes of the bill.
There is a perception that people in tied houses get free accommodation, but that is not the case; they pay rent in the form of labour. Someone who pays rent in any form should be recognised as a tenant and should have rights as a tenant, including the right not to be expected to remain in substandard accommodation. It is important that people in such circumstances have legislation that protects them. That is the heart of our objection to Mary Scanlon's amendment 87.
I have nothing new to add on amendments 73 to 76. Our amendment does more comprehensively what Mary Scanlon seeks to achieve. The fundamental point is one of principle. Mary Scanlon's amendments do not allow for the situation of a farmer who lets a house to a third party. If that happens, it is right that the farmer should meet the requirements of the repairing standard. Mary Scanlon's amendments would relieve him or her of that obligation. We do not find that acceptable.
Amendment 72 agreed to.
Amendments 73 to 76 are therefore pre-empted.
Section 13—The repairing standard
Group 3 is on fire safety. Amendment 5, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 6, 53, 69, and 7.
Amendments 5, 6, 53, 69, and 7 will incorporate fire detection measures in the modernised repairing standard in chapter 4 of part 1 of the bill. The issue met with substantial sympathy when it was raised with the Communities Committee at stage 2. We have responded by exploring the issue further and by lodging these amendments. It is another example of the committee's scrutiny process refining policy and the Executive being happy to respond to sound proposals that arise from that.
The repairing standard is essential for ensuring that a landlord keeps a house and the facilities provided with it in good working order and repair. That is in exchange for rent, or, in the case of tied tenancies, labour. The intention of the amendments is that a landlord will make satisfactory provision for fire detection in the first place and will maintain such detection as part of the fittings.
Like the existing requirement in the repairing standard that a house be fit for human habitation, fire detection is so basic a need that it is right that satisfactory provision for it should be a requirement. In the light of the committee's discussion and after considering the alternatives, I think that the repairing standard is the best place for that requirement.
The amendments say that the provision of fire detection measures should be satisfactory and have regard to building regulations and guidance. That does not mean that existing houses will have to be brought up to the standards required for building a new house. Guidance issued by the Scottish Building Standards Agency sets out what is appropriate for existing houses. Landlords should take the guidance into account.
We will ensure that landlords are aware of the requirements in the guidance; private landlord registration will, of course, help that. When a tenant challenges a landlord's compliance with the agency's standard through the private rented housing panel, the committee hearing the case will consult the fire and rescue service to ensure that its formal decision is backed up by an authoritative view and that there is consistency across Scotland.
I move amendment 5.
I am very content with amendments 5 and 6. I would like to press the minister on the words "building regulations". In my experience, the building control system, although full of excellent people, has inadequate powers. By and large, it never enforces anything at all and it does not inspect work in progress to see whether cowboys or competent people are in charge.
I press the minister to consider strengthening the power of the building control system, either in the regulations that ministers are considering or possibly even in the proposed planning bill, so that the excellent standards in the Housing (Scotland) Bill and in other bills can be enforced.
I recognise the point that Donald Gorrie makes. He is right that many of the concerns about planning relate to the perceived inability to enforce standards. That is a general problem: regulations are undermined by ineffective enforcement. I am happy to take on board the points that Donald Gorrie makes about the regulations.
Amendment 5 agreed to.
Amendment 6 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Section 23—Referral to private rented housing committee
Group 4 is on decisions by the president of the private rented housing panel. Amendment 80, in the name of Christine Grahame, is grouped with amendments 81 and 82.
The amendments are all linked. I hope that the minister understands the spirit in which I lodged them. They aim to assist in the process of determining an application to the panel with regard to a landlord failing to meet the repairing standard.
I thought that, even taking into account schedule 2, there was no harm in fleshing the process out, in particular in section 23(1). Currently, under that subsection, the president has only two options—to refer an application to the panel or to reject it. Amendment 80 would give the president more flexibility and would make consideration of any further written representations mandatory. The amendment says that
"the president must consider any further written representations … and may request further such representations"
before a decision is made. I hope that that solution is seen to be sensible and practical.
On amendment 81, it is easier if parties can resolve their disputes by mediation rather than by going straight to a panel for a decision either for or against, because a decision can be made collectively. That is not always possible, but there may be circumstances in which mediation is absolutely appropriate and would take some of the burden off the private rented housing committee.
Amendment 82 relates to section 23(3)(b) and would ensure the president made a decision "after considering representations". Therefore, the president would be given the opportunity to hear from the parties and to take a considered view. As I said, the problem may be resolved without taking it to the committee, but if it went to the committee, there would be full information.
I move amendment 80.
I recognise the spirit in which the amendments have been lodged, but perhaps they are too prescriptive and it would be relevant to cover the matter in guidance to the president.
I will give an example. Amendment 80 states:
"the president must consider any further written representations".
Why should the president consider only written representations? Would not that exclude those who cannot make written representations for one reason or another? In other words, the interpretation of what is in the primary statute could be a problem. As I said, the matter would be better covered in the guidance, although I recognise the spirit in which the amendments were lodged.
I appreciate why Christine Grahame wants to build the extra elements in question into the procedures of the private rented housing panel, but it is not necessary or appropriate to include the provisions in the bill in order to achieve fair and sensible consideration of cases.
The president will refer cases to a committee unless he or she has reason to reject them. The president will certainly want to consider any information that is available—whether written representations or other types of representation, which Euan Robson reminded us about—and will want to be satisfied that the case is genuine and that a committee sitting as a tribunal is needed to resolve the dispute.
If written representations were made in time, the president would certainly consider them. Section 23(3) is designed to allow the president to gather further information if doing so would be helpful. The president would be open to criticism if representations were received and not taken into account. Therefore, amendment 80 would not add anything in practice. It would also give the president a statutory duty to consider representations without providing any timetable or other arrangements for their submission.
Amendment 81 deals with mediation. We intend to develop the use of mediation in the panel's processes because where mediation works, it is far preferable to having an imposed decision. A formal requirement to offer mediation could hold up cases in locations in which suitable mediation services are not available—I think that Christine Grahame recognised that in constructing her amendment. However, a provision that permits the president to propose mediation adds nothing to what the president will be able to do anyway. I assure Christine Grahame that I will encourage the president to find ways to promote the availability and use of suitable mediation where possible, although I think that the president will need little encouragement to do that.
Section 23 will allow the president to defer a decision if there appears to be a reasonable prospect of the parties resolving the dispute. Amendment 82 could be read as restricting the scope for the president to do that where no representations have been made but the president nevertheless thinks that there could be scope for a voluntary resolution of the dispute.
In the light of the arguments that I have made and assurances that I have given, I ask Christine Grahame to seek to withdraw amendment 80 and not to move her other amendments.
I am delighted by the minister's response, which will appear in the Official Report—that is what I really sought. In the circumstances, I seek to withdraw amendment 80.
Amendment 80, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 81 and 82 not moved.
Group 5 is on procedural matters relating to the determination on the repairing standard. Amendment 11, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, is grouped with amendment 10.
The amendments respond to amendments that Tricia Marwick lodged at stage 2—obviously, we have good cop and good cop today. Those amendments dealt with notification procedures for complaints to the private rented housing panel and raised a valid point, but we thought that their effect would go beyond what was intended. I am grateful to Tricia Marwick for withdrawing them in the committee on the basis that we would lodge alternative amendments at stage 3.
Amendment 11 will ensure that, where a tenant asks someone else to act for him or her in connection with an application to the private rented housing panel, the president will inform that person as well as the applicant if the application is rejected. Amendment 10 will ensure that if the president instead refers the application to a private rented housing committee for a determination, the committee will inform that agent as well as the applicant of the outcome. The amendments will ensure that a case is not held up by failures of communication.
I move amendment 11.
We do have good cop and good cop today. I am delighted with the minister's amendments in response to the amendments that I lodged at stage 2. I was concerned that there are many elderly and vulnerable people in the private rented sector in particular and was particularly concerned that people who act on behalf of elderly or vulnerable people are simply not covered. As the minister said, the proposals will help to speed up the process and will ensure that the advocate or the person who is acting for the elderly or vulnerable person is kept informed about the process. The Scottish National Party happily supports the amendments in the minister's name.
Do you have any further comments to make, Ms Lamont?
I have nothing further to say.
Amendment 11 agreed to.
After section 28
Group 6 is on the effect of a repairing standard enforcement order on the termination of short assured tenancies. Amendment 12, in the name of Tricia Marwick, is the only amendment in the group.
Amendment 12 is similar to an amendment that I moved at stage 2. I am concerned about the process and about when protection is given to tenants.
Amendment 12 would resolve two issues, the first of which relates to the form of protection that is afforded to the tenant. As it stands, the bill will make it an offence for the landlord to enter into a new tenancy agreement where an enforcement order is in effect. That will not prevent the landlord from evicting the tenant, but will simply ensure that he cannot enter into an agreement with a new tenant in any property.
For the private rented housing panel to work, it is important that tenants have confidence in its ability to protect them when they apply to it. However, as the bill stands, tenants will be given minimum protection when they apply to the panel. There will be nothing to prevent a landlord from evicting a tenant for most of the time during which the landlord is being investigated. The protection for tenants should be strengthened to prevent their eviction during that period and to bolster the panel's effectiveness.
Amendment 12 would suspend the landlord's right to evict without grounds by referring to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 and the grounds that are needed to terminate a short assured tenancy. In effect, a landlord would not be able to bring a short assured tenancy to an end if the panel decided that a case that had been brought by a tenant should be heard. However, if need be, the landlord could still evict the tenant because of their antisocial behaviour by making an application to the court.
Amendment 12 would also change the point at which protection would kick in. Under the bill as it stands, the landlord will not be banned from letting the property to someone else until the panel has investigated and made an enforcement order. Nothing in the bill will prevent the landlord from evicting the tenant as soon as a private rented housing committee investigates. That is a critical point and could seriously undermine the operation of the panel and tenants' confidence in it—the likelihood is that tenants will fail to use it to gain legal redress. The amendment would ensure that the landlord's power to evict was suspended for the period during which the committee was investigating the landlord and that protection for the tenant would kick in as soon as the referral had been made to the committee—that is, as soon as the investigation begins, rather than when an enforcement order is granted.
I move amendment 12.
I understand the intention behind amendment 12, as we discussed the matter in the committee. To some extent, it reflects people's sometimes difficult relationships and experiences in the private rented sector. However, the problem that was identified at stage 2 would remain.
Amendment 12 seeks to protect a tenant from being evicted because he or she has referred the landlord to the private rented housing panel. Section 28(5) already provides a form of protection in that regard. If the amendment were accepted, a tenant could use the measures in it to delay the exercise of the landlord's right to the property at the end of the tenancy. All that the tenant would have to do would be to make a complaint to the private rented housing panel about a repair—spurious or not. The measures would take effect when the case was referred to a private rented housing committee, by which point there would not yet have been any investigation into whether the landlord was in the wrong. Until the committee concluded its deliberations, the landlord would be unable to recover or occupy the premises.
A landlord and tenant enter into a short assured tenancy knowing that the landlord is entitled to end it at the agreed term, subject to the statutory procedures and timescales. The landlord has a right to recover possession without having to demonstrate the reasons, and both parties know that when the tenancy is entered into. However, under amendment 12, the tenant would be able to stop the landlord exercising his or her rights under the short assured tenancy until the complaint to the private rented housing panel had been determined. Therefore, the landlord's right to recover possession would be frustrated by delay.
Apart from the issue of rights, the matter could, in practice, be significant in a situation in which, for example, the landlord is trying to deal with the tenant's antisocial behaviour or in which the landlord has let a house while working elsewhere and has to return to the area.
The landlord's alternative would be to prove in the sheriff court that one of the grounds for terminating a full assured tenancy applied. That would be onerous and, again, would delay the landlord's exercise of the rights that are part of the short assured tenancy agreed with the tenant. Amendment 12 would, therefore, create a situation that has significant potential for abuse.
The purpose of section 28(5) is to protect tenants by preventing a landlord from entering into a new tenancy without the consent of the committee while the house is subject to a repairing standard enforcement order. That is a strong incentive for a landlord not to evict the tenant who made the complaint unless there are other good reasons why such an action is necessary. Of course, neither approach prevents a landlord from ending the tenancy after the repair works are completed. However, comparing the two approaches, I do not think that amendment 12 strikes the right balance between a landlord and a tenant. It could be used to delay a landlord's recovery of the property in a situation in which and at a time when it is appropriate for the landlord to do so. I therefore invite Tricia Marwick to withdraw the amendment.
As the minister said, it is a question of balance. I believe that the thrust of the bill is to give tenants greater protection than they have at the moment. As the bill stands, the balance is shifted towards the landlord at the expense of the tenant. For that reason, I intend to push the amendment to a vote.
The minister said that section 28(5) gives some form of protection, in that the landlord commits an offence if they enter into a tenancy or occupancy arrangement at any time during which the repairing standard enforcement order has effect. That is true and I do not dispute it. On the other hand, there is nothing to stop a tenant being evicted as soon as they make an application to the panel. All that the provision does is prevent the landlord from reletting. The minister might think that there is a balance there, but I do not agree.
The minister raised the issue of antisocial behaviour at stage 2. It is not the intention of amendment 12 to prevent landlords from evicting someone because of antisocial behaviour and, indeed, it would not do so. There would still be recourse to the sheriff court to evict on that ground. The amendment would simply prevent the landlord from evicting without going to the sheriff court in the first place.
The balance has not been struck by the ministers and I will press amendment 12.
Since Ms Marwick is pressing her amendment, the division bell will ring once I put the question and we will suspend for five minutes.
The question is, that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
In that case, there will be a division. I suspend Parliament for five minutes.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
We will now proceed with the division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 30, Against 72, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 12 disagreed to.
Section 29—Annual report
Group 7 is on the private rented housing panel's annual report. Amendment 13, in the name of Cathie Craigie, is the only amendment in the group.
Amendment 13 seeks to require the president of the private rented housing panel to include in the panel's annual report the number of cases in which a tenancy management issue arose incidentally during the panel's investigations. In the course of the panel's duties, it will gain a valuable insight into the operations of the private rented sector and it might come across a wide range of issues that are beyond its remit. Although the panel will not be expected to act or advise on tenancy management issues, the insight that it will gain into the multiple problems that private tenants face should not be lost.
A requirement to report on the issues that arise in connection with the investigation of a repair problem will not be a significant additional burden on the panel but it will provide valuable information and evidence on the operation of the private rented sector. I hope that the minister is able to support my amendment.
I move amendment 13.
Cathie Craigie's amendment 13 is the conclusion of an extended discussion that took place during both the consultation and the committee's scrutiny of the bill about the extent to which tenancy management issues should be reflected in the various measures that regulate the private rented sector.
There is already a range of substantial and meaningful legal requirements on landlords. One of the many benefits of the registration of private landlords is that it will make those obligations clear. Research suggests that, at present, many landlords and tenants are unaware of those legal requirements. We want to assess the effects of registration and voluntary accreditation before we decide whether it is necessary to go further and make the letting code that is provided for in section 155.
Our approach to the matter is driven by our desire to base our policy on evidence. There is little hard evidence on the extent of breaches of the law on tenancy management. To legislate without good evidence might undermine the success of voluntary accreditation without clear cause. That would be unfortunate because voluntary landlord accreditation shows every sign of being a valuable and self-sustaining initiative that raises standards in the private rented sector by harnessing market forces.
Amendment 13 recognises those arguments and strikes a balance between the issues that were raised at committee. It does so by requiring the private rented housing panel to contribute other evidence on what is happening in the private sector. When a tenant complains to the panel about a repair issue, it is likely that he or she will mention other issues that are causing problems. It is likely that the panel would advise the tenant on how to obtain assistance on those non-repair issues, but the amendment will reinforce that approach. It will ensure that the tenant's concerns are noted and that the evidence of management problems that emerges in that way is recorded and made available.
I am therefore happy to accept amendment 13.
I am grateful to the minister for his response. I understand and appreciate the work that is done in the sector and I agree that the amendment is a sensible way forward.
Amendment 13 agreed to.
Section 39—Unlawful occupation etc
Group 8 is on miscellaneous provisions on housing standards and houses in multiple occupation. Amendment 14, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, is grouped with amendments 17, 18, 21, 22, 48, 3 and 4.
The amendments in group 8 are mainly technical and tidying-up amendments. I will explain them as briefly as I can.
Amendment 14 corrects an error in section 39(3)(a), which should refer to section 37(1) rather than section 37(2). Similarly, amendment 48 corrects an error in schedule 4A, which should refer to "this schedule" rather than "paragraph 3".
Amendment 17 is intended to help to ensure that houses are kept up to the repairing standard. Section 55 gives landlords the power to apply to the sheriff for an order if a tenant obstructs the landlord's efforts to carry out repairs that are required in order to meet the repairing standard. However, the section does not allow landlords to apply for an order if a tenant obstructs the landlord's access to inspect the house in order to check whether it meets the repairing standard. We want to help landlords to meet their repair obligations, so amendment 17 allows the section 55 procedure to be used in that situation as well. Section 55 already contains safeguards to ensure that the sheriff is satisfied that access is genuinely sought for the stated purpose, that it is reasonable and that the tenant is preventing access even though proper notice has been given.
Amendments 18 and 22 seek to delete certain sections in part 1 that are duplicated in the general provisions of part 8 and schedule 5. Those sections refer to building regulations and the Building (Scotland) Act 2003, which were originally mentioned only in part 1 but which now need to cover the whole bill due to the introduction of HMO amenity notices in part 4.
Amendment 21 deals with the power in section 64A(2) that allows ministers to make the private rented housing panel the route of appeal against a landlord's decision to refuse consent to carry out adaptations to suit the needs of a disabled person or to apply conditions to such consent. That subsection also gives ministers the power to make further provisions on appeals. Amendment 21 clarifies that that power will cover not only appeals to the private rented housing panel but subsequent appeals to the sheriff. As Christine Grahame pointed out in committee, there is room for doubt on that point in the bill as it stands.
Amendments 3 and 4 are consequential to the repeal of parts 5 and 8 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987.
Amendment 3 means that a failure to carry out work required under the byelaws referred to in section 313 of the 1987 act, which relates to certain kinds of HMO, will be treated as a failure to carry out work required by a work notice and will be enforced accordingly.
Amendment 4 repeals passages in sections 313(4) and 319(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 that relate to parts V and VIII of that act.
I move amendment 14.
Amendment 14 agreed to.
Section 52—Matters relevant to application to carry out work under section 51
Group 9 is on the guidance that the Disability Rights Commission issues. Amendment 15, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 16, 19 and 20.
These amendments concern a tenant's right to make adaptations to suit a disabled occupant. The bill provides for landlords or the court to have regard to codes of practice and guidance issued by the Disability Rights Commission when considering whether it is reasonable to refuse, or apply conditions to, a tenant's application for consent to make such adaptations. It is right that a code of practice issued by the commission in this connection should have such statutory force because it must be approved by the secretary of state after consultation with Scottish ministers.
However, guidance issued by the commission does not have any form of Government approval, and so it is better that it remain purely advisory and that it should not have statutory force. Amendments 15, 16, 19 and 20 therefore change the relevant provisions in the bill to refer only to codes of practice.
I move amendment 15.
I find these amendments rather curious. The minister had the words "or other guidance" inserted on 28 September 2005 at stage 2. I am trying to work out why he is taking that out six weeks later. At the time, the Deputy Minister for Communities said:
"In England and Wales, the Disability Rights Commission's code of guidance is required to be taken into account in court proceedings that relate to the tenant's right, and we agree with the committee that that should be the case in Scotland too. Such proceedings are based on housing law, which is a devolved matter, and so it is for the Scottish Parliament rather than Westminster to require the sheriff court to take account of the commission's guidance."—[Official Report, Communities Committee, 28 September 2005; c 2456.]
That seemed to be why the minister wanted to embed such practice in statute, and I do not know why the reasoning has changed in six weeks.
The equivalent provisions for England and Wales refer only to codes of practice and not to guidance. I would like to reassure Christine Grahame further by saying that the Disability Rights Commission in Scotland is also aware of the amendments and has no issue with them.
Amendment 15 agreed to.
Section 52A—Amendment to the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001
Amendment 16 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.
Section 55—Obstructions etc
Amendment 17 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.
Section 59—Registration
Amendment 18 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.
Section 63—Part 1 appeals: determination
Amendment 19 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.
Section 64A—Adaptations: power to change method of appeal
Amendments 20 and 21 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.
Section 67—Interpretation of Part 1
Amendment 22 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.
Section 70—When assistance must be provided
Group 10 is on mandatory adaptation of house for disabled persons. Amendment 23, in the name of Tricia Marwick, is the only amendment in the group.
During stage 2, the Deputy Minister for Communities said:
"The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently reviewing the DFG,"—
that is, the disabled facilities grant—
"but as we do not know the outcome of that review, the DFG is a moving target for comparison."—[Official Report, Communities Committee, 28 September 2005; c 2476.]
We now know the results of that review and we are concerned that, unless action is taken, Scotland will fall considerably behind England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the support that is given to disabled people. The bill as amended at stage 2 proposes that a local authority must give a grant only for toileting or washing facilities for a disabled person. Assistance must be given for adaptations such a ramp, lift or hoist to get into and out of bed, but it can be in the form of advice or other help in the place of a grant.
The Deputy Prime Minister has announced that, in England and Wales, the means test will not be applied when the disabled facilities grant is for a child. We are asking the Minister for Communities to review disabled adaptations, to make grants a priority and to set a timescale for action. The minister has made a general commitment to consider further the means test as it affects disabled people; he has also agreed to consult further on making regulations to place a duty on local authorities to make grants for more adaptations than just those for toileting and washing facilities.
However, we are concerned that the issues that affect disabled people will cease to be a priority once the bill leaves the Parliament. As the Communities Committee observed in its stage 1 report, Scottish disabled people should not be disadvantaged in comparison with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is why I lodged amendment 23, which asks the minister to review the operation of section 70(1)(b) and to lay before the Scottish Parliament a report on the results of that review within two years of the date on which section 70 comes into force. It is a question of monitoring what is happening in Scotland and ensuring that disabled people are not disadvantaged. I hope that the minister will accept the amendment in the spirit in which it is moved.
I move amendment 23.
I understand and share the concerns that Tricia Marwick expresses, but I am not sure whether her amendment will achieve what she wants it to do. I am slightly concerned that, if the amendment were agreed to, it might take valuable resources away from the implementation of section 70(2B).
Despite saying that, I think that it is important for the minister to reflect the genuine concerns of the Communities Committee and of organisations such as Ownership Options in Scotland, which is concerned that the review of mandatory grant status should not be allowed to slip or drift away. I hope that the minister will give assurances that that will not happen once the bill is passed and that the Executive has a genuine commitment to addressing the disability organisations' legitimate concerns.
I acknowledge the spirit in which the amendment was lodged, but I believe that it is too prescriptive. It is perhaps even counterproductive in setting down a timeframe of two years. Parliamentary scrutiny through the Communities Committee and an assurance from the minister that he intends to press forward with implementing the necessary changes would suffice. I do not propose to support the amendment, although I acknowledge the spirit in which it was lodged.
I assure Tricia Marwick—in fact, I reassure her, since I was clear with the committee about the matter at stage 1—that the issue is a key priority for the Scottish Executive. I give Karen Whitefield the same assurance that the Executive has a genuine commitment. I talked to the committee about ring fencing money as one way to deal with what I know are concerns about the variations in the amount of money that is spent. That is certainly still on our agenda.
Tricia Marwick suggested that we were disadvantaged compared with England, but the evidence from comparing the spending per head in England and in Scotland does not point in that direction. I point out to her that we do not yet know the results of the review in England; only one measure—that which concerns children, to which she referred—has been announced. However, that is not the subject of her amendment.
I appreciate that Tricia Marwick wishes to ensure that the arrangements that we proposed at stage 2 are progressed as quickly as possible. However, as Euan Robson said, her amendment is impractical. I will explain why when I discuss its detailed implications.
The Executive amendment at stage 2 that introduced subsections (2A) and (2B) into section 70 was intended to allow careful assessment of the level of need that disabled people have for various types of house adaptations in various circumstances, with a view to extending the arrangements under the section. We proposed those subsections because we were very concerned and open-minded about the issue, as I made clear at stage 1 in May. We were also responsive to the concerns that the Communities Committee's report flagged up.
The process will be complex, as it will require the gathering of better and more detailed information than is currently available and the consideration of priorities, resources and other ways of meeting individual needs. It will link into the development of greater co-ordination between health, housing and social work agencies and a review of the means test for grants for adaptations to take account of the costs that face disabled people. We are strongly committed to the review, which will be undertaken soon—unlike what has been suggested elsewhere, it will not be kicked into the long grass. We will do that work in conjunction with relevant interests and it will inevitably take a little bit of time. We will then go through the full process for making regulations under the affirmative procedure, which will include public consultation and the preparation of a regulatory impact assessment. I remind members that the purpose of the regulations is to reassure people that the situation that they fear—that disabled people on low incomes will not receive grants—will not arise.
Tricia Marwick's amendment 23 would require a review two years after section 70 came into force. We do not intend to delay the introduction of mandatory assistance while we go through the processes that I described, as that would deny people the right to assistance that the section will provide. The review would therefore look back on a period following the establishment of mandatory assistance, during which it is likely that the extent of mandatory assistance would have been reviewed and that the available assistance would have been changed. Therefore, the review for which the amendment calls would cover a period of considerable change and—crucially—at best only a short period in which the changes that are envisaged by subsections (2A) and (2B) could be in force.
In summary, it will take us a little time to bring the regulations into force. We will do that as quickly as possible, but that is bound to take a bit of time after the bill's enactment. A review after two years would not cover a significant period of full implementation of section 70, so it would not be meaningful. As Karen Whitefield reminded us, such a review would also be a significant piece of work that would divert resources from the implementation of the steps that section 70(2B) envisages.
I therefore ask Tricia Marwick to withdraw amendment 23 and I repeat our absolute commitment to ensuring that proper provision is made for disabled people.
I thank the minister for his comments and for his clear commitment, which is now on the record, to ensuring that people in Scotland who are disabled are not disadvantaged in comparison with disabled people in England and Wales. I am not minded to press my amendment; rather, I will seek members' agreement to withdraw it, because of what the minister said about the period of change and the period in which the regulations will come into force. I believe that all members of the Communities Committee and all other members will look closely at what the minister does in the next period, to ensure that his deeds echo the words that he has spoken today. I seek the Parliament's agreement to withdraw amendment 23.
Amendment 23, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 95—Duty to have information about a house which is on the market
Group 11 is on the provision of information on the sale of a house. Amendment 24, in the name of Mary Scanlon, is grouped with amendments 25 to 46, 2 and 68.
In addressing the 22 amendments in my name in the group, I am conscious of a comment that the minister made earlier. He said that legislation needs a good evidence base. I thoroughly agree with that, of course. However, the single seller survey pilot started in July 2004, with a target of carrying out 2,000 surveys; the figure of 2,000 was then reduced to 1,200 and, in the end, only 74 single seller surveys were carried out on which to base this legislation.
The decision to make the single seller survey compulsory came as a shock to the members of the Executive's steering group on the subject. The group was given no say in the final decision. The three policy drivers for the single seller survey were to improve information on property condition, to reduce wasted expenditure on multiple surveys and to address artificially low upset prices.
The Executive's evaluation of the pilot study, which was undertaken by Arneil Johnston, stated that it was impossible to say anything authoritatively about the experience of purchasers. Therefore, the argument behind the first policy driver is not proven. As for multiple surveys, members who have received the many letters from Edinburgh solicitors and estate agents in recent days will know that virtually all properties—especially in Edinburgh—are now bought subject to survey. There has also been a move towards fixed prices, which addresses the charge relating to low upset prices.
A conflict of interest also arises. If a survey is the seller's, the seller pays a surveyor who is acting on behalf of the seller. Solicitors cannot act for buyers and sellers, so how can we expect a surveyor to do so? If the potential purchaser wants information on the property, he will be forced to have his own survey carried out in order to discuss the property with a surveyor. That takes us back to multiple surveys.
I know of a property in Edinburgh that was one of the 74 that participated in the pilot scheme. By the time it finally sold, the survey was out of date and the purchasers had to have their own survey done. The inclusion of the single seller survey in the transaction has been described as the "kiss of death" by agents and the seller, who now wishes that he had never opted in. In future, buyers and sellers will unfortunately not have the choice of opting in or out, as the bill will make the single seller survey compulsory.
As I said, most properties are bought subject to survey and the successful bidder has the survey carried out, usually within 24 hours of hearing that his offer is acceptable. He is then of course free to discuss the report with the surveyor, who has no conflict of interest. If the purchaser refuses to accept the seller survey and opts instead to carry out his own survey, who will then pay for the seller survey?
The offer subject to survey and the recently introduced solicitor-led standard style of offer in Edinburgh contracts can bring the binding stage forward. Sometimes it can take place in the course of one day.
Issues also arise to do with the shelf-life of the single seller survey. It is incredible what one can learn as a member of the Communities Committee: I now know that dry rot spreads at a rate of 1m a month. The length of time for which the results of a survey remain acceptable is clearly an issue.
We also have to consider the cost of the single seller survey and the purchasers information pack. Every time the issue was raised in committee, it seemed that more and more was being added to the information pack. We have to wonder whether the figure of £100 for legal fees that is given in the financial memorandum is accurate. I doubt it. In the financial memorandum, it is estimated that the single seller survey will reduce purchase prices in the first year by £120 million. The predicted fall in subsequent years is not given.
I come back now to Arneil Johnston's evaluation of the pilot scheme. The report says:
"from the limited evaluation possible, it would appear that the existence of a Single Survey is not considered by sellers to improve the marketability of properties".
The report had nothing authoritative to say about the experiences of purchasers and it was inconclusive about the influence of the single seller survey on non-purchasers and about its impact on selling agents. So much for the good evidence base for legislation.
Arneil Johnston's report concluded:
"the majority of surveyors … strongly believe that the Single Survey will not have a positive impact on improving the condition and energy efficiency of private sector housing in Scotland".
The whole rationale behind the pilot exercise was that it would lead to improvements in the fabric and energy efficiency of homes in Scotland. Not only do we not have a decent evidence base, but the 74 surveys showed that single seller surveys will not even achieve what the Executive has set out to achieve.
The single seller survey will make it very expensive for people to put their properties on the market and it will cause considerable delays. Selling older properties will become even more difficult. The single seller survey will probably put an end to sellers testing the market before the final decision is made to sell.
The single seller survey pilot was a failure, but there was also a failure in consultation. In the eyes of buyers, sellers, surveyors and selling agents, the survey has been a failure. As I said at stage 2, if there was a handbook on how not to legislate, the single seller survey would be the leading chapter.
I move amendment 24.
I note that Mary Scanlon's amendments have been repeated despite the Communities Committee's considerations at stage 2. She has simply rehearsed what she has said in the past about the single seller survey and I am tempted to repeat now what I said then. I will take the opportunity to make the case again for the single seller survey. I am happy to expand on some of its advantages.
First, let us consider the current system of house buying and selling. In effect, there are two different approaches. In the first, every potential buyer can have their own separate survey carried out on the same property. Every buyer runs the risk that their bid will be turned down; in hot markets, some unfortunate buyers—especially first-time buyers—can have that experience on a number of properties. The approach causes multiple surveys and wasted expense; it drives people to commission the cheapest form of survey—the scheme 1 valuation, which contains very little information on the condition of the property.
The single seller survey provided at the start of the process with a valuation will enable buyers to avoid those risks and make use of an independent and detailed survey that will provide a proper assessment of property condition.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I would like to make a little more progress first.
In the second approach, the market response to the multiple valuation problem has been offers subject to survey. That approach to combating multiple surveys has been adopted in some areas, most notably Edinburgh. However, I say to Mary Scanlon that she ought not to be so Edinburgh-centric, because the approach is not favoured by all property professionals. In the approach, the buyer submits an offer before the property is inspected or valued. They then have a survey carried out if they are successful with their bid. However, the approach still tends to employ scheme 1 valuation reports—perhaps because of the risks involved. If the valuation does not meet the offer submitted, or if the surveyor finds a serious problem, the whole deal has to be renegotiated leading to a risk for both seller and buyer that they will not get what they thought they were getting.
It is far better if the buyer is informed about the condition and value of the property before making an offer. With offers subject to survey, that information is provided only after an offer has been made. That means further negotiation, risking delay or the complete falling through of the transaction. I know of someone who was in such a position. There had been an offer subject to survey and the seller had to take the property off the market in order to negotiate. As a result, the seller may have lost the opportunity to receive offers from other people.
The single seller survey will provide greater certainty and transparency to the whole transaction by providing the necessary information at the start of the process. Each party will know the condition of the property and will be able to sort out the finances accordingly—both the seller's asking price and the buyer's offer price—instead of having to walk in the dark and having to retrace their steps as they do with offers subject to survey.
It is worth reminding ourselves of the objectives that the housing improvement task force identified for the single seller survey: to provide better information on property condition for sellers and buyers; to promote repair and maintenance work; to reduce wasted expense on multiple surveys; and to discourage the setting of artificially low upset prices.
We know that if people have a problem with their property, their instinct is to find a way to sell it on and make it someone else's problem. However, that does not deal with the question of people being responsible for maintaining their properties and of how we allow people to know what they are buying before they make an investment that is probably greater than any other they might make in their lives. I have certainly spent less time over making such a purchase than I have spent deciding on the colour of my car.
Mary Scanlon talked about having an evidence base. However, she undermines the surveying profession's integrity by implying that it would be minded to say something on the basis of who paid for the survey. The profession is accountable for its professional responsibility; it has an ombudsman and its own standards that must be applied. Moreover, the matter can be taken to court. It is unacceptable to suggest that a survey will be slanted towards the person who pays for it.
This point is important. I have the utmost confidence in the surveying profession, but will the minister confirm that, when a seller pays for a survey, the surveyor is equally responsible to all potential buyers and can give them the same level of advice that he or she gives to the seller?
The point is that the transaction pays for the survey. The survey informs the transaction and the professional gives his or her professional advice on the property's state. Mary Scanlon should not suggest that the surveyor's professional integrity is such that what is in the survey is determined by what the person who pays for it wants it to say. Indeed, it is dangerous to make such suggestions in any approach to this issue.
We should also recognise that all legislation attracts vested and committed interests on all sides and that we should make a judgment about the point at which such interests kick in. I acknowledge Mary Scanlon's point that legislation must have an evidence base. No one in the chamber has ever suggested or pretended that the single seller survey pilot was a great success; it was not. Indeed, I know of someone who was told not to commission a single seller survey because it would not give them a competitive edge in the market and would open them up more than other sellers to exposure.
In eight months, only 74 surveys were commissioned, 64 of which were in Glasgow and one in Edinburgh. However, the pilot scheme showed not that the single seller survey concept was flawed but that the system would not work if it was voluntary. I should also point out to Mary Scanlon that there is a difference between what she suggests happened and setting up a working group on the matter, taking advice, consulting people and ultimately taking an executive decision on the basis of that information. I am content with the Executive's conclusion after examining the single seller survey pilot that a voluntary approach did not work. However, we believed that the policy principles remained important, particularly for people who want to get into the property market, and that we needed to respond accordingly. The fact that there are simply insufficient incentives for sellers to pay up front voluntarily for a survey when they can just allow purchasers to continue to pay for survey after survey makes the case for introducing a mandatory single seller survey. The housing improvement task force itself recommended that a legislative approach should be held in reserve.
We intend the single seller survey to follow the model used in the pilot. It will contain information on a property's condition, energy performance and accessibility. Moreover, to achieve all the task force's objectives, it will include a valuation.
As a newcomer to the debate, I am concerned by the minister's comments. Although she has repeatedly used the phrase "we know", what happened to the pilot clearly demonstrates that the minister and her advisers do not know. She has just said that the Executive will go ahead on the basis of the pilot, but she also stressed the fact that it was a spectacular non-event and failure. Will she explain that position further?
When we introduced the pilot scheme, it did not work. We concluded that that happened because it was voluntary. However, we felt that none of the fundamental principles that it addressed in relation to the maintenance of properties, artificially low upset prices and multiple surveys had been challenged. That is why we felt the need to move forward on the basis on the pilot.
I wonder whether the minister could also give me some information on this matter. I make no apologies for being Edinburgh-centric in this matter—I know that I am eccentric as well. If, as the pilot appears to indicate, the buyer is suspicious of the scheme 1 valuation, there is nothing to stop them carrying out their own survey. If that contradicts the seller's scheme 1 valuation, how is the matter resolved?
The member's question brings us back to professional integrity. On the basis that the member has outlined, the survey does not mean anything to anyone and no one has any confidence in any professional advice that they might seek. I repeat that the surveyor has his or her own professional commitments. No one is stopping a person commissioning half a dozen surveys if that is what they want; our proposal is intended to address the unfortunate position in which, particularly in hot markets, people have surveys carried out and then find that they cannot afford the property. It seems only reasonable to make available to buyers a description of the property and any problems that it might have, and I should point out that the person who ultimately buys the property in effect pays for the cost of the survey in the purchase price.
Although we felt that its approach was rational, the pilot still did not work. We then drew from that the—I think, entirely reasonable—conclusion that if the decision to commission a single seller survey was left up to individuals, those who in their honesty commissioned such a survey would be asking to have their property's condition opened up in a way that would not be asked of people who did not commission one.
Despite Mary Scanlon's comments on our decision to go ahead with a compulsory single seller survey scheme, stakeholders, particularly those involved with the working group, have stuck with the Executive on this matter. I am sure that they will continue to work with the Executive to ensure that the final proposal that is developed is sustainable and effective. The Executive feels that the three objectives that were identified by the housing improvement task force remain as important as ever and, although offers subject to survey will not achieve those objectives, the single seller survey will.
Amendment 30 seeks to enable regulations that are made under section 101 and which would be used to establish the single seller survey and purchasers information pack schemes to include, if necessary, a requirement for single seller surveys or other prescribed documents to be registered with a central body or bodies as part of a quality control regime.
The use of the power or otherwise will be dependent on our continuing discussions with stakeholders. If the single survey is to be successful, buyers, sellers, agents and lenders will all need to be confident in the independence and reliability of the report that is supplied. Confidence in the survey product will be created primarily by the professional standards of the survey's providers, its legal terms and conditions and the available forms of redress. However, as we develop the detail of the scheme in consultation with stakeholders, we will consider whether it is necessary to provide further assurance to consumers through the use of a register of single seller surveys. Such a mechanism could, for example, reveal whether a property has been the subject of more than one survey. As with the rest of part 3, regulations covering this issue would be subject to the affirmative procedure.
We will carefully consider the costs and benefits of any such requirement. We favour a system that is as simple and as straightforward as possible and that goes with the grain of the existing house buying and selling process. Equally, we acknowledge that it might yet be necessary to introduce a register and it is important that the bill provides sufficiently flexible powers in that regard.
On amendment 2, I must first make it clear that we fully recognise the importance of closely monitoring the operation of the single seller survey and purchasers information pack schemes. As they involve a significant change to the house buying and selling process, we must keep a close eye on their progress. Indeed, I am sure that the Parliament and its committees will want to do the same.
That said, the Executive does not support amendment 2. If a review were required to be submitted to Parliament within two years of the date on which the whole of the part was first in force, it might assess only one full year of operation. It is hardly appropriate to carry out a review in such a timescale. After all, systems need time to bed in and programming a review so early in the scheme's operation would serve only to create uncertainty in the industry about the long-term intentions for the scheme.
I emphasise again that the single seller survey scheme seeks to help people who are selling or are trying to buy properties. Huge changes have happened in the past 25 years. Twenty-five years ago, 70 per cent of houses were rented; now, more than 64 per cent of houses are owner-occupied. We have not caught up with the different way in which the market now operates and the fact that people now have different responsibilities. This proposal seeks to build confidence and trust and to ensure that people buy properties that they are able to maintain.
I assure that the Executive will very closely monitor the operation and effects of the scheme. On the basis that I have already outlined, I ask Mary Scanlon to withdraw amendment 24 and not to move amendments 25 to 29 and 31 to 46.
For the avoidance of any doubt, amendment 2 says that the report should be laid before Parliament
"within 2 years of the date on which the whole of the Part was first in force"
That would give a clear two years after the regulations come into force in which to assess the way in which the single seller survey operates.
I start from the point that the Scottish National Party supports in principle the single seller survey and purchasers information pack. It was entirely laudable that the initial aim of the survey was to have a home condition report that would help to bring about a change in the fabric and structure of those properties that are poorly kept up and where people tend to spend more on putting in kitchens year after year than on making sure that the roof and walls are sound. The home condition report is therefore understandable.
The problem is that the survey was sold to the Scottish public as something that would get rid of the need for multiple surveys. Much has been said in the chamber about the trial that was conducted so I am not going to go over that again. I am going to go back to the evidence that was put before the committee at the time.
We need a little more clarity about what a valuation is. A valuation is not done for the purchaser; it is done for the lender. The valuation that the seller pays for is instructed on behalf of banks such as the Halifax or the Royal Bank of Scotland. That is a very important distinction because if the bank does not like the single seller survey, it will ask the purchaser to have a valuation survey done. That is a huge issue just with the practice of the single seller survey. I do not think that the single seller survey will cure the problem.
The committee had a huge argument about the shelf-life of the single seller survey. The value of a property is what it sells for. If someone has a valuation done in January, the value of the property might go up or down in March because, for example, something has happened in the area or there are rumours in the ether that a motorway might be built there. As I understand it, in England, the valuation part of the home condition report has been taken out. That is another serious issue to be overcome.
There is also a conflict of interest because the valuation is instructed by the seller. The contractual obligation must therefore be between the seller and the surveyor. To say that there is some strange kind of contract between the surveyor and the prospective purchasers is extraordinary because, in law, parties to a contract are not acted for by the same agent. I think that a belt-and-braces approach will be taken. The home condition report might well end up being part of the pack, but valuations will still be done on behalf of the lenders to the prospective purchasers and offers will be made subject to survey. Judging by the evidence that we have at the moment, it does not seem as if the proposals will work.
The idea is not new; as I understand it, it has been on the go since 2003. When the issue of regulations was raised at the committee, the minister could not produce drafts even though all the detail of the workings of this law will be in those regulations. The regulations will be made after we pass the bill today and they might not work. That is why I am calling for a review.
With respect to her sunset clause, Christine Grahame has said that the review should be after two years, but the minister suggests that there would then be only one year's worth of evidence to consider. However, the minister has decided that the bill is necessary because of only nine months of a pilot survey. How can the minister say that the one year's evidence that would be gathered after the two years proposed by Christine Grahame's sunset clause is unacceptable but that the minister's nine-month pilot survey is acceptable?
I am glad that Phil Gallie is going to support the SNP amendment. I have reservations. I do not want to get hung up on the trial that was run because there might have been difficulties with it. There might also be some validity in saying that people will not buy into a voluntary scheme, but that is not the only basis on which I bring these issues to the chamber.
There are issues of cost. We do not quite know what the purchasers information pack will cost. If it is £1,000, much of that will have to be paid up front by the seller. The seller might not have equity and might not have much money in the bank. They could be a very ordinary person who wants to move on to a slightly larger house. Where will the money for the survey come from? The minister said that there will be some kind of loan scheme. That was it. I pressed the minister at committee to say whether the loans will be secured against the property on sale. How will the loans be recovered? What if, having discharged the previous loan over the property, the seller does not have sufficient spare cash from the selling price to be able to pay the loan back? How will the money be paid back to whoever has loaned it?
Can a seller make several applications for loans? If I put my house on the market in January and there is a three-month shelf-life on my single seller survey, but the house does not sell and I have to take it off the market—and we should remember that all the costs have to be paid up front—what if I then put it back on the market and go back to whoever is giving the loans and ask for another £1,000? Can I ask for another £1,000 for another purchasers information pack? We do not know the answers to all those details; it is very messy.
I am concerned because there is no point in passing law when we do not have the detail in front of us. We do this time and again and we end up with a framework of a bill and flawed regulations that cannot make the law work. That practice must change.
The Liberal Democrats support the single seller survey. We put it into our manifesto and we intend to sustain our support for it today.
Like others, I have received representations late in the day from several quarters and Mary Scanlon's eloquent exposition of the views of Edinburgh solicitors and surveyors brought them back to mind. I do not accept the dire predictions of the collapse of the housing market as a result of all this. I do not accept the dire predictions of some that there will be huge numbers of additional surveys. Apart from anything else, that ignores the fact that multiple surveys will not have to be carried out on behalf of buyers. There might indeed be some additional surveys, but I suspect that some of those will be to check particular points. For example, if the single seller survey demonstrates some difficulties with the roof of a property, the surveyor might be instructed to look at that particular aspect. I do not think that we should be concerned about that. The minister addressed Margo MacDonald's point on that issue.
It has also been suggested to me that the cost will be somewhere around £1,000 per house. That is not the case. There is a scale that goes from around £400 up to £1,000 for higher-value properties.
I certainly did not say that £1,000 was the cost of the survey. The cost of the purchasers information pack might be of that order and many of the outlays will have to be paid up front.
I did not imply that it was Christine Grahame who said that the cost would be £1,000 per house. The question about the purchasers information pack is important and I will come back to that in a moment. The cost of the survey itself is on the scale that I mentioned; I know that that scale is in the public domain because I read it among the Communities Committee's papers.
It is important that the purchasers information pack is kept in proportion. I understand that primary documents were to be produced in the purchasers information pack, but now it is intended that there should be a summary, which is a much more effective and proportionate form of information. If, in that summary information, there is cause for concern, I am sure that the legal profession would want to take on further investigations of the specific points that are made.
It is important to be prepared to make change and, to an extent, to experiment. That is the spirit in which we will put the single seller survey into law. Moreover, there are issues that need to be addressed. The regulations will be particularly important in ensuring that the relationships between the surveyor and the seller and between the surveyor and the buyer are clear, so that there can be confidence in the survey. There must also be further and detailed consideration of the growing trend of missives being exchanged subject to survey and I would be grateful if the minister would undertake that specifically. If two parties decide that they wish to proceed, and if they are prepared to do so on that basis, I believe that we should somehow be able to slot the seller survey into that process without disrupting the growing practice that the industry is adopting.
There is some talk about dire consequences for the housing market as a result of the introduction of the survey. I do not accept that for a moment. To illustrate with just one example, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently increased stamp duty by a considerable margin, the cost increases that were thereby entailed were far greater than the increases that would result either from the introduction of the single seller survey or from the addition of the single seller survey to the purchasers information pack; there has been little decline in the housing market as a result of the increase in stamp duty and I do not believe that there is evidence to suggest that the survey and the information pack will damage the housing market.
I oppose all the amendments in the group, with the exception of amendment 30. The amendments in Mary Scanlon's name are identical to the amendments that were heavily defeated in the Communities Committee at stage 2. Mary Scanlon talked extensively about what is happening in Edinburgh and somehow, using a very quick phrase, extrapolated from that situation to the rest of Scotland. What is happening in Edinburgh is a feature of the Edinburgh market; it is certainly not what is happening in the rest of Scotland, so I do not think that Mary Scanlon can make that jump.
It is interesting that Mary Scanlon has suddenly seized on Edinburgh and has forgotten to mention Inverness, the area that she usually talks about. What she described is not what is happening in Inverness at the moment, as a lot of people who are trying to buy property there know. My sister, who is trying to buy property in Inverness at this very moment, is now on to her third attempt to buy and her third scheme 2 survey, so that she can decide whether to make an offer on the property in question. Mary Scanlon knows—she talks about it all the time in the committee—how hot the housing market is in Inverness and the problems that people face in buying into that market. Nothing that she proposes in her amendments would help those people—her constituents—to realise what they want to do.
Christine Grahame began by saying that the SNP supports the single survey in principle, and I welcome that commitment. Then, as she did at stages 1 and 2, she gave good reasons, from her point of view, for not having the single seller survey.
At stage 2, Scott Barrie said:
"Christine Grahame has raised real concerns, but we have to say that if we agree with the principle, we have to find a way of making it work in practice".—[Official Report, Communities Committee, 5 October 2005; c 2489.]
I agree with that. The trouble is that, two years after we had all that stuff done, we still do not know how the survey will work in practice, because we do not have the regulations and that is where the detail will lie. That is my concern. Does Scott Barrie share that concern?
No.
Christine Grahame said that the SNP supports the single seller survey. I would have thought that any party that supported something, but thought that the Executive had not provided sufficient detail, or had not done things in the way that that party would have done them, would have lodged amendments to reflect its position. At stage 2, Christine Grahame sat on her hands and voted neither yes nor no, unlike some of her other colleagues on the committee.
The minister acknowledged, quite rightly, that the single seller survey pilot was not a success, but she clearly indicated the reasons for that in her speech. The main reason—let us be honest—was that there are vested interests who did not want the pilot to succeed and they successfully vetoed the pilot. It may have been a mistake to have a pilot in the first place; I might concede that point. I think that the Executive was absolutely right to pull the plug on the pilot and to have the courage of its convictions to do what is right. The Executive's proposal is the right thing for a large number of people who have been totally discriminated against by the current workings of the housing market.
Many people, particularly but not exclusively first-time buyers, have had to go through survey after survey, having shelled out the very funds that Christine Grahame talked about, only to end up with nothing at the end of the exercise except a bunch of papers telling them what the valuation on certain houses might be, even though they got nowhere near being able to purchase those properties. The single seller survey will remedy that situation. If it were to do that and nothing else, that would be a good thing, but it will do more than that.
Will Scott Barrie give way?
No. I have given way already.
The single seller survey could lead to an improvement in the private sector housing stock. At the moment, too many people, for financial reasons or just because of the advice that they are given, do not know exactly what they are buying. The single survey will spell out in great detail exactly what people are taking on, so that they can make a judgment on whether they wish to purchase the property. Too many people are encouraged to go for the scheme 1 survey, which gives them a valuation and little else, and they may live to regret their purchase, which is probably the greatest purchase that they will make in their lives.
The single seller survey has the potential to lead to improvement in our housing stock, and it will make a huge difference to purchasers in the housing market. For those two pertinent reasons, we should defeat the amendments in Mary Scanlon's name.
I would be grateful if the next few speeches could be limited to four minutes maximum, and I may have to reduce that.
I declare an interest. I am a solicitor, although not currently practising, and I spent 12 years before entering Parliament practising in the field of property law, among other areas. Therefore, I have a certain background knowledge of the subject.
I support Mary Scanlon's amendments to remove the single seller survey. I believe that the measure is unnecessary and unwanted; it is noticeably and vigorously opposed by those who practise in the field, who are surely the ones that we should listen to. I believe that there are five reasons why the survey is wrong.
First, as Mary Scanlon said, the survey was introduced to remove the supposed social ill of multiple surveys being paid for by purchasers. As we have heard, the market has cured that social ill in Edinburgh and in many other places, and that is happening in more and more parts of Scotland as a result of the introduction of offers subject to survey. That social ill, which was at the centre of the rationale behind the measure, has been all but removed.
Does Murdo Fraser think that it is healthy that people commit to a property the biggest sum that they will ever commit in their lives, without knowing the condition of the building or what maintenance might be required, and that they make their financial calculations without knowing those basic facts? Is that financially good for Scotland?
I am afraid that Sarah Boyack shows her complete ignorance of the operation of the property market and the survey system. People who make offers subject to survey make their offer conditional upon seeing a survey report. They then have the opportunity to study that survey report and consider whether or not to proceed. It is a perfectly simple and straightforward matter of legal contract that has operated perfectly well for many, many years. I see no difficulty with that.
Secondly, the single seller survey is wrong because it will present a cost barrier to sellers, who will have to find the money up front to fund the survey and the seller's pack, as Christine Grahame said. We heard talk from the minister of some sort of loan scheme, but we have no idea how that will operate in practice. I remember many cases of people coming to me in difficult situations when they wanted to sell property. A couple could be separating or getting divorced, and it could be difficult for them to find the money even to put the property on the market and pay for the initial advertising. How could they find the money to pay for a survey fee and a seller's pack in addition to that? Where would the money come from?
Thirdly, there is the problem of slow markets, in which properties can sit on the market for months on end. After three months, the valuation could be out of date because of changing circumstances, as Christine Grahame said, and the seller would have to find yet more money to update the survey. In effect, the survey will be a regressive tax on sellers because, regardless of the value of the property, they will have to find money to fund the sale.
Fourthly, the Executive's proposal challenges the basis of the Scottish system of property law. The Roman-law principle of caveat emptor, which has applied for centuries, is being swept away in favour of reliance on a seller-instructed survey. What purchaser or lender will rely on such a survey when issues of duty of care, liability and conflict of interest have still to be resolved?
Finally, and most compellingly, surely in a liberal democracy Government should legislate only as a last resort, when there is no other way in which to proceed. In the stage 1 debate on the St Andrew's Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Bill, Tom McCabe said:
"we should legislate only when it is necessary to do so".—[Official Report, 6 October 2005; c 19875.]
That is patently not the case here, because there is no evidence base for the measure in question. The pilot has been a failure—even Executive members accept that.
Euan Robson, who is a Liberal, gave the game away when he said that the single seller survey was an experiment. The Executive is experimenting with the property market and with the investments of millions of ordinary Scots. For centuries, the property market has been regulated by private contract and has worked fine. Now this meddlesome and interfering Executive thinks that it knows best, despite all evidence to the contrary. The Executive knows nothing and understands even less about our property market. It should remove its proposal, which is irresponsible and meddlesome.
It was interesting to hear that one of Murdo Fraser's apparently compelling arguments against the single seller survey was that it eroded the Roman-law doctrine of caveat emptor. I think that that was seriously undermined by the Sale of Goods Act 1892, which was introduced to give protection to purchasers. I am an enthusiastic supporter of the single seller survey because it is intended to give help and protection to purchasers who are about to make one of the biggest purchases in their lives.
For the reasons that Johann Lamont and Scott Barrie have given, which I will not go over, there is an extremely good case to be made for the single seller survey. I want to comment on some of the concerns that have been raised and which require to be addressed. In doing so, I seek not to undermine the principle of the survey, but to examine it in a practical way. I will deal first with the situation of those people who are on lower incomes, who might not be able to find the money up front to fund the survey and the pack. In a letter to me that is dated 8 November, Malcolm Chisholm said that he would consider
"a safety net for genuine cases of hardship",
for which the bill paved the way. I would welcome any elaboration of that point that Johann Lamont is able to give us when she responds to the debate.
Another issue is the shelf-life of the survey, on which Malcolm Chisholm said in his letter:
"Consensus has been reached that there should be no prescribed shelf life."
Far be it from me to disturb a consensus, but it is clear that over time not only the valuation, but the state of the property will change. I do not think that Mary Scanlon needed to be a member of the Communities Committee to find out how quickly dry rot sets in; the fact that she has been a member of the Conservative party over recent years should have been enough.
That is a cheap shot.
There is an issue there.
I fully accept the arguments that Johann Lamont made against amendment 2, which is in the name of Christine Grahame. The amendment proposes that a report would have to be produced within two years of the survey being introduced, which means that the evidence period on which the report would be based would be far too short. When the regulations are being drawn up, I ask the minister to include in them a provision that would oblige Parliament to return to the issue after, say, five years, to consider not only whether the single survey had lived up to the expectations of it that many of us have, but whether specific problems had arisen. That would allow the regulations to be revised and any areas of difficulty to be addressed in a practical way.
As Christine Grahame rightly said, the SNP supports the principle of single seller surveys. Although we will oppose the amendments in the name of Mary Scanlon and support the minister when we come to the vote, Christine Grahame is right that many concerns have been expressed. Jim Wallace referred to some of the concerns about how the single seller survey will work in practice.
When the minister appeared before the Communities Committee, I was grateful that she gave an undertaking that the draft regulations would be submitted to the committee for its consideration. That will enable us to ensure that the concerns that we have raised at stages 1, 2 and 3 have been addressed. I urge the minister to take on board some of those concerns.
For the reasons that Scott Barrie and others outlined, I believe that the single seller survey is a good thing. It is not right that young people who are desperate to enter the housing market must obtain multiple surveys. To admit that there are good reasons why we should have single seller surveys is not to deny that there were problems with the pilot scheme. Of course, some of those problems—not least the hostility of those professionals who, frankly, did not want the survey to work in the first place—could never have been overcome.
For those of us who want the survey to work, it is vital that the draft regulations that the minister puts before the Communities Committee are capable of being amended and that full consultation has been done. When the regulations are produced, those of us who believe that a single seller survey is a good thing must be confident that all—or, at least, most—of the concerns that have been expressed during consideration of the bill have been addressed by ministers.
I would like to explore further the point that Jim Wallace made, to which Euan Robson alluded. After saying that the single seller survey was an experiment, Euan Robson was assailed vigorously by the Conservatives for doing so, but all legislation is an experiment. Although we might think that a certain course of action is a good idea, we do not know how people will react. There is none so queer as folk—especially, in some cases, Scottish folk. We do not know how house purchasers, professional people such as lawyers and surveyors, or the market will react to the single seller survey.
I do not necessarily agree with everything that Christine Grahame said, but her point about reviewing the arrangement is important. Two years may be too short a period, but the minister should take up the recommendation that we must keep an eye on how the single seller survey works—Jim Wallace, too, made that point—because if people react in a way in which we do not believe that they will react, things could go quite badly wrong. We must have the machinery to put things right if some of the regulations do not work properly. I hope that the minister will take seriously the thrust of Christine Grahame's proposal, even if he does not support amendment 2.
Many points have been raised and it is justifiable to return to the minister and allow her to make a second speech. I can give you about six to seven minutes, minister.
I will attempt to cover the main points that have been highlighted.
If what Christine Grahame said met the definition of what it means for the SNP to give its support to a proposal, Nicola Sturgeon might need to look to her laurels. The fact of the matter is that Christine Grahame said one thing in favour of the single seller survey—that she was in favour of it—and proceeded to undermine and demolish it and to highlight things that would cause people to lack confidence in it. I worry about what she would have said if she had said that she was opposed to the single seller survey.
It is interesting that Phil Gallie defined amendment 2 as a sunset clause; I agree that it represents an attempt to get the single seller survey over with and to get it back off the statute book because Christine Grahame is not in favour of it. However, I acknowledge the points that Jim Wallace and Donald Gorrie made. We are not in the business of ignoring the law of unintended consequence. In fact, we are extremely rigorous about not doing that with our legislation in general. Although I think that many of our communities will benefit from the single seller survey, I am certainly keen for us to keep a close eye on it as it rolls out.
On the regulations, Christine Grahame cannot have it both ways. She cannot argue simultaneously that we have not produced a perfect, fully fleshed-out proposal and that we have not worked closely enough with stakeholders. I give a guarantee that we will work closely with stakeholders and the committee on the development of the regulations. Why would anyone not want the new survey to work? The policy drivers behind it are so strong that of course we want it to work. I emphasise that the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
As regards the rights that the survey will give the buyer and the seller, contracted conditions in the survey will put the purchaser in the same position that they would have been in if they had commissioned the survey themselves.
Mary Scanlon said that the pilot did not really work, but our proposal is not all about the pilot; it is the result of two years of evidence taking, research and discussion. We have worked with the housing improvement task force over a long period. Given the task force's expertise, we should listen to what it said.
Several points were raised about valuation. The lender could pursue options including the undertaking of a desk-based valuation, a valuation from an automated valuation model or a drive-by valuation, or they could instruct a further inspection of the property. Certainly, the first three of those options would be done at very low cost. Again, the issue is one of confidence.
Much has been said—and much of that was scaremongering—about the cost of the survey. Scott Barrie made a compelling point about the costs that people incur at the moment, with nothing to show for them.
I was struck by the complacency of the tone that Murdo Fraser adopted. According to him, the system is perfect; there are no problems with it. Perhaps for some people in the profession there are no problems, but if Murdo Fraser were to get out a bit more, he would discover the other interest that is operating—the consumer interest. I am thinking in particular of the young people who are trying to get into a market that, 25 years ago, they would not have been able to enter. We have to reflect on the consumer interest as well as on that of the profession. We have to sit more closely with the professionals to ensure that the proposal is workable.
In effect, Murdo Fraser was saying that if the market is operating, we should not legislate. The trouble is that the Tories, in their time, did not recognise the fact that the market was not operating. If we have learned anything from the Tories' period in Government, it is that, by their definition, a market that is working is one that leaves devastation all around. If the position that Murdo Fraser is taking to the market is political, that is fine.
Does the minister agree with Euan Robson that the measure is an experiment?
Do not be ludicrous.
It is evident that, through the proposal, we recognise that the market as it stands neither works nor encourages people to identify the difficulties with a property before they buy it. The market cannot solve the problems that the housing improvement task force identified.
Much has been said about the cost of the survey. We are working closely with the profession to ensure that the cost is sustainable, workable and affordable. It may be in Murdo Fraser's interest to deny both the consumer interest and the limits of the market, but we do not operate in that way.
We recognise that the Communities Committee raised the issue of problems for low-income sellers. We will work with the professionals involved to design the scheme in such a way that the market can deliver affordable packages. That could include short-term loans or the option of rolling up the survey fee with the other fees that are due when the property is sold and equity is released. Following the Executive's amendment of section 68 at stage 2, we will consider the need for a safety net through the scheme of assistance. However—perhaps Murdo Fraser will be heartened to hear this—we will not seek to substitute for private sector activity and the way in which that could be developed.
A lot of noise has been made about the measure and we have heard some dubious support from SNP members. The single seller survey is a measured approach to concerns that have been raised over a long period of time and is a result of the study of a changed private sector in which people buy property without recognising the commitment that they have taken on and are uncommitted to maintaining it. People also get caught up in spending money with nothing to show for it at the end of the buying process. The approach that the Executive is taking is serious. As we develop the regulations, we will work with all those who want to ensure that the measure is effective. I urge members to support the Executive amendments in the group and to resist Mary Scanlon's amendments.
I am pleased that my amendments have given members the opportunity to debate the issue. I am grateful to members throughout the chamber for the concerns that they have reflected in the debate.
I turn to the minister's points, one of which was that every buyer has to buy surveys. That is simply not the case; I made that clear earlier. I also made it clear that the majority of offers, in Edinburgh and elsewhere, are being made subject to survey, with the survey being done within 24 hours.
I have never before been accused of being Edinburgh-centric. For some reason, over the past few days, I have received letters from Edinburgh solicitors—I suppose that many other members received them, too. God help us that we should speak on behalf of Edinburgh solicitors, but if solicitors from Shetland, the Western Isles, Jura, Glasgow, Inverness or wherever had written to us, I would have been happy to use their points in my speech.
The fact is that I represent the Highlands and Islands. However, as my party's spokesman for housing and planning—dare I say it—I can mention other areas in Scotland. If that is the only criticism that the minister has of me, the Executive is clutching at straws.
Will the member give way?
No. The member had his say on my Edinburgh solicitors. We will leave it at that.
The minister commented on the incentive to carry out repairs. I refer to the conclusion of the Arneil Johnston report, which is that, from the limited evaluation,
"it appears that generally sellers carry out only minor/general repairs or improvements and respondents indicated they would have done this regardless of the Single Survey".
That is from the minister's evaluation.
The minister mentioned the ways in which the seller can pay for the survey, but members have still not been given clear advice on that matter. How can a buyer get advice other than that which is written in the single seller survey? Many buyers want to discuss the survey—they want to ask about the roof, for example—or to get more detail on this, that and the other. However, with the single seller survey, they can get oral and further advice only by commissioning their own survey.
The surveyor who acts on behalf of the seller cannot deal with 100 buyers phoning up to ask for a wee bit more information about the damp patch. That will just not happen. The minister says that the single seller survey will end multiple surveys, but it will not. To discuss the survey of the property, the buyer—and, in many cases, the lender—will be required to find out that information. I am delighted that the steering group stuck with the Executive, but the question is whether it had a choice in that.
Christine Grahame raised the issues of valuation shelf-life and conflict of interest. Those are major points that have not yet been answered. Of course, they will also impact on the regulations. Repossession was mentioned. When it comes to bankruptcy and repossession, who will put the money up front for the single seller survey? Euan Robson admitted that additional surveys would be required. I remind him that the financial memorandum set the survey fee at £400 and the valuation fee at £150; it also said that there would be a £120 million reduction in purchase prices. That is all in the Executive's financial memorandum.
Scott Barrie said that I spoke about Edinburgh; my response to him is that I am fully aware of the Inverness market.
The minister's commitment to work with stakeholders will, of course, be essential. I remind the minister that the Executive set the target base for the pilot at 2,000. Although the figure was amended to 1,200, it ended up as 74.
I press amendment 24.
The question is, that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 15, Against 93, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 24 disagreed to.
Section 96—Duty to provide information to potential buyer
Amendment 25 moved—[Mary Scanlon].
The question is, that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 13, Against 94, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 25 disagreed to.
Section 97—Imposition of conditions on provision of information
Amendment 26 not moved.
Section 98—Other duties of person acting as agent for seller
Amendment 27 not moved.
Section 99—Acting as agent
Amendment 28 not moved.
Section 100—Duty to ensure authenticity of documents held under section 95 or 98
Amendment 29 not moved.
Section 101—Information to be held or provided to potential buyers
Amendment 30 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm].
The question is, that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 94, Against 14, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 30 agreed to.
Amendment 31 not moved.
Section 102—Exceptions from duty to have or provide information
Amendment 32 not moved.
Section 103—Responsibility for marketing: general
Amendment 33 not moved.
Section 104—Responsibility of person acting as agent
Amendment 34 not moved.
Section 105—Responsibility of seller
Amendment 35 not moved.
Section 106—Enforcement authorities
Amendment 36 not moved.
Section 107—Power to require production of prescribed documents
Amendment 37 not moved.
Section 108—Penalty charge notices
Amendment 38 not moved.
Section 109—Offences relating to enforcement officers
Amendment 39 not moved.
Section 110—Information for tenants exercising right to purchase
Amendment 40 not moved.
Section 111—Grants for development of proposals
Amendment 41 not moved.
Section 112—Disapplication for houses not available with vacant possession
Amendment 42 not moved.
Section 113—Application of Part to sub-divided buildings
Amendment 43 not moved.
Section 114—Notification of breach of duty
Amendment 44 not moved.
Section 115 —Possession of documents
Amendment 45 not moved.
Section 116—Meaning of "on the market", "sale" and related expressions
Amendment 46 not moved.
After section 116
Amendment 2 moved—[Christine Grahame].
The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 36, Against 65, Abstentions 7.
Amendment 2 disagreed to.
Section 116B—Tenancy deposit schemes: regulatory framework
Group 12 is on tenancy deposits and interest. Amendment 47, in the name of Tricia Marwick, is the only amendment in the group.
At stage 2, the Deputy Minister for Communities came to the Communities Committee and introduced tenancy deposit schemes, which are supported by all the committee's members—their introduction is very welcome. The schemes are necessary because of the problems that people have had in getting their money back at the end of tenancies. In too many cases, landlords have held on to the money; that has caused great problems, particularly for people who do not have the wherewithal to go to law to get their money back. I am thinking in particular about students and people who live in short-term accommodation. On too many occasions, landlords believe that the money belongs to them.
Although I wholly welcome the scheme that ministers have introduced, and I acknowledge that they will introduce regulations to give effect to it, one thing is missing from the scheme, and that is interest on deposits. Especially with longer tenancies, interest is bound to accrue. There is an argument about where it goes, but if any interest accrues on a tenant's deposit, and if we all accept that the money belongs to the tenant at all times, the interest should be given if the deposit is returned. If the Executive does not accept amendment 47, I would like ministers to say clearly who the interest belongs to, because that question has not been answered.
I welcome the proposals for tenancy deposit schemes, but the question of tenancy deposit interest must be addressed. I look forward to the minister's comments.
I move amendment 47.
At first, Tricia Marwick's amendment 47 seems innocuous: it simply seeks to add to the list of matters that the tenancy deposit regulations may cover. The list is discretionary, so other matters that are not listed may also be covered by the regulations. Even without amendment 47, ministers could prescribe in regulations what will happen to interest that is earned on tenants' deposits, therefore Tricia Marwick's amendment is not necessary.
I have other concerns that lead me to ask Parliament to reject amendment 47—it could create two further difficulties. First, we propose that tenancy deposit schemes should, as far as possible, be self-financing. If all the interest was returned to tenants, schemes would be limited to being funded by other means. That might entail a compulsory fee for using a scheme, or require the use of Government resources that would have to be diverted from other areas.
Secondly, the inclusion of amendment 47 could raise the expectation that a tenant will receive all the interest on their deposit. That would significantly constrain the debate on the range of options for dealing with tenancy deposits. The focus would then be on schemes that would maximise interest for the tenant, rather than those that will be most cost effective in relation to the extent of the problem.
We intend to consult on a number of possibilities for safeguarding tenants' deposits, including a range of financial options for funding such schemes. Some of the options include custodial schemes, in which the money would be held by an independent third party. Other options may not entail a custodial arrangement. At this stage, we neither want to rule in nor rule out whether tenants may get all the interest accrued on their deposits.
At present, it is rare for a tenant to receive any interest on a deposit that is held by their landlord. Although some options for tenancy deposit schemes might rely on part of, or even on all, the interest that is earned on tenants' deposits to fund their operation, that would still be an improvement on the current position. Use of an element of the interest that is earned on tenants' deposits may be a small price to pay for the additional security that such a scheme would bring.
On the basis that amendment 47 is unnecessary, and that it would raise expectations in what might not be the most cost-effective arrangement, I invite Tricia Marwick to seek to withdraw her amendment.
I was minded not to press amendment 47, depending on what the minister said, but what he said did not make sense. Tenants expect to get back their whole deposit at the end of their tenancy and there is no reason to suggest that they should not get their own money back. Ministers have already accepted that deposits belong to tenants, but are now saying that a third party will hold the interest to pay for a scheme that should be self-financing, when in fact they mean that tenants will finance it and landlords will have no input.
Ministers need to be up front about the matter. If it is expected that interest will be held by third parties on behalf of a number of people, a lot of interest will be floating around among those third parties. That is cause for concern.
Regulations will, of course, cover many matters, but I do not think that it is unreasonable—on such a fundamental matter as this, concerning tenants' money—for Parliament to say that the regulations should contain a scheme whereby tenants may get the interest on their own money back at the end of their tenancy. It is not unreasonable for Parliament to say that, nor is it unreasonable for ministers to ensure that the matter will be covered in the regulations when they are made.
The question is, that amendment 47 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 39, Against 63, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 47 disagreed to.
Section 140—Penalties etc
Group 13 is on houses in multiple occupation and enforcement. Amendment 49, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is grouped with amendments 50 to 52 and 67.
I thank the Communities Committee for its work on the bill and for referring to the amendments that I lodged at stage 2, although I was unable to move them myself because I was convening the Justice 1 Committee, which was considering the Family Law (Scotland) Bill.
My strong interest in regulation of houses in multiple occupation stems from the fact that the Glasgow Kelvin constituency probably has one of the highest concentrations of HMOs. The west end of Glasgow is known by many people as bedsit land because of its high concentration of properties in multiple occupation. Students and many single people tend to live in HMOs and there is a need to protect their safety. The group of amendments is about protecting individuals' safety while recognising that there are good landlords who, despite their having some concerns about the cost of registration, nonetheless comply with the registration scheme.
In my discussions with local authorities and student leaders, an issue that has arisen is the need to ensure that there is strong deterrence in law. The amendments in group 13 would raise the maximum fine for operating an HMO without a licence to £20,000. There are several precedents for that. Licensing currently covers fire safety measures in HMOs. In the future, that will be the responsibility of the fire and rescue services, under the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005. The fine for failing to comply with the requirements under that legislation will be £20,000. Under the Licensing (Scotland) Bill, the maximum fine for selling alcohol without a licence will be £20,000. Operating an HMO in England and Wales, under the Housing Act 2004, will also carry a maximum fine of £20,000.
The normal limit for summary convictions is £5,000, but guidance suggests that the figure could be higher in circumstances that involve serious harm to the public. Amendments 51 and 52 would raise the maximum fine for related offences to £10,000. The offences involve a risk that unacceptable standards of accommodation or of property management are being provided. That requires that a fine should be attached, albeit a fine of less than £20,000. In such cases, the landlord will have attempted to co-operate to the extent of having obtained a licence, but will have breached the licence in some way.
We need to give force to the legislation by ensuring that fines actually mean something. In the few cases of which I am aware, prosecutions have resulted in fines that have been lower than the registration fee. I hope that the Executive welcomes the amendments, which I think will improve section 140 in protecting the safety of people who live in HMOs while allowing good landlords—who register and comply—to be recognised for that.
I move amendment 49.
All the amendments in the group will have a role to play in helping local authorities effectively to enforce HMO licensing. Licensing exists to protect tenants from physical danger and from exploitation by landlords whose only interest is profit. If licensing is not enforced, it does not work.
I acknowledge the work that Pauline McNeill has done on HMOs. She has highlighted her local concerns and I have met groups from her constituency, who discussed a number of issues. Pauline McNeill's amendments address the concern that the current level of fines is not a sufficient deterrent when compared with the amount of money that a landlord can make from an unlicensed HMO. Ms McNeill lodged amendments at stage 2 that the Executive was not able to support because they would have resulted in different maximum fines in different local authority areas. I did not feel able to accept that in principle, although I said that I would consider the issue further. I believe that the amendments in the group offer a better solution.
Twenty thousand pounds is a large sum of money, and is a significant increase from the current level of £5,000, which is normally the maximum amount that may be imposed on summary conviction. Exceptions can be made, however, and I believe that the proposed increase is justified. Failure to obtain an HMO licence should not be viewed as an administrative matter or merely as a lack of the proper paperwork. The penalties need to reflect the risks to tenants and the amounts of money that landlords might make from them. I therefore encourage members to support Pauline McNeill's amendments.
Another aspect of enforcement involves helping local authorities to identify HMOs. New section 160(1A) was inserted at stage 2 for that purpose. A property is required to be licensed if it is occupied by three or more people from three or more families. In investigating potential HMOs, local authorities need to know whether any of the occupiers are related, which includes people living together as couples. There are cases in which tenants have been instructed to say that they are a couple so that the landlord can evade licensing. We feel that it would be helpful to add that point to the information that local authorities can formally require to be provided, in order to put legal force behind such investigations.
Members of the Communities Committee were clearly uncomfortable with such a provision, however. Concerns were expressed about people's rights to privacy and I have taken those concerns on board. I agree that, under most circumstances, it is no business of a local authority to inquire into people's relationships. However, in situations such as I have described, that might be the one piece of information that is required to determine whether or not a crime is being committed; that is, whether or not an HMO that should be licensed is operating illegally. It is important that we retain the provision. Amendment 67 will tie the provision down to particular circumstances in which it is necessary to obtain such information. I believe that that strikes the right balance between respecting tenants' privacy and enforcing the law. I hope that members will support amendment 67.
Between investigation and penalty, there must be prosecution. I appreciate that local authorities might feel that it is very difficult to provide evidence that a certain property is the occupiers' main residence if the landlord maintains that it is not. The Executive has not lodged an amendment on that point, because I believe that it is important to retain the main-residence test. However, my officials are considering with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and with local authorities whether there are weaknesses in the current practice and, if there are, how they might best be remedied.
I have no time to call Pauline McNeill to make a winding-up speech on the group, nor to invite speeches from back benchers.
Amendment 49 agreed to.
Amendments 50 to 52 moved—[Pauline McNeill]—and agreed to.
Section 149—Interpretation of Part 4
Amendment 53 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.
After section 154
Group 14 is on repayment charges. Amendment 54, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 55 and 56.
It has always been the Executive's intention that the bill would include a mechanism similar to the charging order regime in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 that would enable local authorities to recover the costs of works that they have carried out. Amendments 54 to 56 will introduce an updated version of the charging order, called the repayment charge, which will retain the main features of the charging order.
A local authority is entitled by the bill to recover certain expenses it has incurred—there is no time to list them all. Amendment 54 will provide that a local authority may recover such amounts by placing a repayment charge on the living accommodation concerned, or on the site when a house has been demolished. The repayable amount will be due in 30 equal annual instalments, but early redemption is possible and is likely to take place when the house is sold.
Amendment 55 will provide reassurance to local authorities that the money that they spend when owners fail to carry out work that is required is secure and recoverable from any owner of the property, once the repayment charge has been registered. The repayment charge will be a continuing burden that will not be extinguished by sale of the property.
Amendment 56 will give ministers powers to make by order further provisions about repayments under a repayment charge, and about early redemption.
I move amendment 54.
Amendment 54 agreed to.
Amendments 55 and 56 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.
Section 155—Matters relevant to deciding whether person is fit and proper to act as a landlord
I have decided to invoke rule 9.8.4A to provide that the debate on group 15 should finish 10 minutes later than was provided for in the timetabling motion.
Group 15 is on the letting code. Amendment 57, in the name of Cathie Craigie, is the only amendment in the group.
Amendment 57 will, for the purposes of the fit-and-proper-person test, at the point when the letting code is being introduced, assess whether local authorities are taking into account bad management practices and unlawful evictions and harassment. That will not only inform the letting code and any accompanying guidance, but will enable discussion about whether further measures are needed to tackle bad management practices in the private rented sector. The issues were discussed during stages 1 and 2. Amendment 57 should be agreed to.
I move amendment 57.
Amendment 57 deals with concerns about levels of unlawful eviction and harassment, which were raised in an amendment at stage 2. That earlier amendment called for local authorities to appoint specialist officers to pursue cases of illegal eviction and harassment under the existing provisions in the rent acts. However, we feel that the introduction of private landlord registration from 31 March next year will provide a new and effective route for local authorities to deal with landlords who treat their tenants in such ways.
Discussion on the issue has been hampered by a lack of clear evidence on the incidence of unlawful eviction and harassment. Section 92A of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 requires ministers to assess the effectiveness of existing obligations and voluntary arrangements before they make a letting code, which would be a factor in the test whether a person is fit and proper for registration. Amendment 57 makes it explicit that that assessment will include the question of unlawful eviction and harassment. I am happy to support the amendment, because of the extra assurance that it will give.
Amendment 57 agreed to.
That ends consideration of amendments at this stage. I will give members 30 seconds to sort themselves out.